Teams

Ford/LF

2025 TUL ADULT 65 & Over League · 7.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.62 / OKLAHOMA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-05-18vs Fraser/PHWon 21
W#1 DoublesDebbie Archer / Nancy Burris vs Jane Jones / Paula Marshall6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesShari Singleton / Deborah Hale vs Terry Largent / Jo Clark4-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#3 DoublesGeorgia Burd / Chrisanne Nelson vs Pam Meimerstorf / Sandra Fraser3-6, 1-6
2025-05-04vs OKWC/Mullenix/65&over7.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesDeborah Hale / Shari Singleton vs Karin Duke / Vanessa Hutto3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMelynda Stone / Nancy Burris vs Cindy Noyes / Rebekah Herrick4-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesDebbie Archer / Elizabeth Webster vs Gloria Mullenix / Mia Vahlberg7-6, 2-6, 1-0
2025-04-27vs Fraser/PHWon 21
L#1 DoublesChrisanne Nelson / Elizabeth Webster vs Gail Kelly / Terry Largent2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesRebecca Thomaselli / Debbie Archer vs Sandra Fraser / Jo Clark6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesMelynda Stone / Nancy Burris vs Daryl Eaton / Beth Latham6-1, 6-1
2025-04-06vs OKWC/Mullenix/65&over7.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesVickie Ford / Nancy Burris vs Karin Duke / Vanessa Hutto2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesDeborah Hale / Shari Singleton vs Gloria Mullenix / Mia Vahlberg3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Webster / Debbie Archer vs Cindy Garrett / Roxanna Hanseth6-7, 6-4, 1-0
2025-03-30vs Fraser/PHLost 12
W#1 DoublesDeborah Hale / Shari Singleton vs Deborah Mocnik / Jane Jones1-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#2 DoublesRebecca Thomaselli / Vickie Ford vs Kathleen Harris / Pam Meimerstorf6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesGeorgia Burd / Karen Young vs Beth Latham / Daryl Eaton2-6, 3-6
2025-03-09vs OKWC/Mullenix/65&over7.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesChrisanne Nelson / Elizabeth Webster vs Karin Duke / Vanessa Hutto2-5
L#2 DoublesDebbie Archer / Rebecca Thomaselli vs Gloria Mullenix / Mia Vahlberg4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesNancy Burris / Becky Newport vs Cindy Noyes / Roxanna Hanseth6-4, 6-3
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings3 teams · 7.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1OKWC/Mullenix/65&over7.0W4210817156
2Fraser/PH339921162
3Ford/LF2481024179

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 2.93 estimated across 8 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

Chrisanne Nelson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
Deborah Hale
published 3.5
3.20
Debbie Archer
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.16
Nancy Burris
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.09
Rebecca Thomaselli
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.00
Becky Newport
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.88
Shari Singleton
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.75
Melynda Stone
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.75
Kay Jones
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.63
Susan Hargis
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Elizabeth Webster
published
Georgia Burd
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Karen Young
published
Vickie Ford
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Kay Jones + Susan Hargis11559% games+4.6% vs expected
Debbie Archer + Shari Singleton7653% games−2.2% vs expected
Nancy Burris + Deborah Hale9655% games−2.2% vs expected
Nancy Burris + Shari Singleton4450% games−3.1% vs expected
Deborah Hale + Shari Singleton9748% games−8.1% vs expected
Debbie Archer + Elizabeth Webster6357% gamesnot enough data
Nancy Burris + Becky Newport314 matchesnot enough data
Georgia Burd + Nancy Burris213 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

4
Chrisanne Nelson
0W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Deborah Hale
54W–51L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Debbie Archer
42W–20L career · 5 lines in 2025
8%91%2%
3.20
Nancy Burris
112W–79L career · 5 lines in 2025
13%87%1%
3.16
Rebecca Thomaselli
25W–22L career · 3 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
3.09
3.5
Becky Newport
42W–44L career · 1 line in 2025
51%49%<1%
3.00
Shari Singleton
50W–47L career · 4 lines in 2025
80%20%<1%
2.88
Melynda Stone
57W–39L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%3%97%
2.75
Kay Jones
121W–118L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%4%96%
2.75
Susan Hargis
83W–103L career · 5 lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
2.63
Elizabeth Webster
38W–38L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Georgia Burd
25W–46L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Young
24W–18L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Vickie Ford
18W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.